sapir whorf hypothesis (extra blog)

One topic that really interested me this semester was our Discussion of the Sapir Whorf hypothesis. For those of you who don't remember this hypothesis, which is also known as linguistic relativity/determinism, discusses the idea of how people are only able to think in terms of the language that they know how to speak. In other words, language, thought, and culture are all interconnected in the minds of humans (Ash, 1999). It implies that the how we interpret our surrounding world is deeply based on the language which we speak. in essence, language controls our minds. Discussing this theory however, raises some different questions and issues that may oppose it. Like for example, are we only able to think in terms of 1 language? If that is so, then how do those who are multilingual think? And if we can only think in terms of our own language, then how can we explain our thoughts about things which we cannot explain in our own language? It is a very complex topic that still has yet to be fully explained and analyzed. I took some time to examine some of these issues, because i don't believe that this hypothesis could ever be called a theory (Stafford).

One of the first and main reasons why i do not agree with this hypothesis is due to the issue i previously mentioned, of those who are multilingual. Many people who are multilingual learn one language first and then at around the age of 3, start learning their second language. THe hypothesis may be acceptable in this case. However there are also many infants who simultaneously leaner two languages. How can the hypothesis support this? Does a child choose one language to think in terms of, and then interprets those thoughts into another language? THis does not seem practical when a person is equally proficient at 2 languages.

Also, what about infants? If this hypothesis is true, then there is no way babies can have any cognitive abilities, or generate emotions based on thoughts, fears, and happiness. We know that babies are able to think, we know that they feel emotions, are able to laugh, cry, feel fear. These are all things that cannot arise without thoughts. Studies have shown that children develop ways of thinking about and perceiving objects independent of their language development. These thoughts and perceptions arise before children even begin to say their first words (Cromie, 2004). So if children cannot speak a language, How are they able to think if this hypothesis holds true?

Another related issue is that of inexpressible thoughts that all humans have. Have you ever understood something in you mind but simply couldn't put it into words? All people have this problem throughout their lives, and they are not thinking in terms of their own language. If we could only think in terms of our own language and culture, these inexpressible thoughts would not even exist in our minds (Wikia, 2009).

These are all issues that one should definitely look into before supporting this hypothesis. There are many criticisms that seem to hold true pertaining to this hypothesis, and I think that they make it clear that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis will never be able to become an actual theory.

The Sapir Whorf Hypothesis

http://www.angelfire.com/journal/worldtour99/sapirwhorf.html

Harvard Gazette Archives; WHich comes first, language or thought? William J. Cromie; Harvard News Office, 2004

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/07.22/21-think.html

Stafford, Amy, Sapir Whorf Hypothesis; Minnesota State University Mankato

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/language/whorf.html